The Church has a new Pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the first non-European Pope, the first Latin American Pope, the first Pope called Francis. The mass media are trying to guess what will be the future of the Church during his Pontificate, by looking at his past as a cardinal, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and as a simple priest. Which revolution will he bring about? Hans Küng has called him the best possible choice (La Repubblica, 14 March 2013). But it is only after he has made his principal appointments and after his first programmatic speeches that it will be possible to predict the lines of Pope Francis pontificate. It is true for every Pope what Cardinal Enea Silvio Piccolomini said in 1458 when he was elected with the name of Pius II, Forget Enea, welcome Pius.

History never repeats itself exactly but the past helps us to understand the present. In the 16th century, the Catholic Church went through an unprecedented crisis. Humanism, with its immoral hedonism, had infected the Roman Curia and even the Pontiffs themselves. Against this corruption there emerged Martin Luthers Protestant pseudo-reform which was dismissed by Pope Leo X, a Medici, as a quarrel between monks. The heresy had started to fizzle out when, on Leo Xs death in 1522, the first German Pope was elected, Adrian Florent from Utrecht who took the name Adrian VI. The brevity of his reign prevented him from bringing his projects to fruition, in particular  as the historian of the Popes, Ludwig von Pastor, writes  the gigantic war against the mass of abuses which deformed the Roman Curia and nearly the whole Church.

That's because it's Christ throne....and His alone as we know...or should.

Man's always tried to dethrone Christ's rightful place, manufacturing even Himself to be there...and if not his idea of finding a way to upsurp Him by someone or something else...then use him like a tag line.

Pure stupidity. The throne is the throne of the bark of St. Peter. Christ is the tree and we are its branches.

The expression “power of the keys” is derived from Christ’s words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaiah 22, in which “the key of the house of David” is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church, that there be one Church, one teaching of his Word, and His Body and Blood will be found in the Holy Eucharist. All the rest emanate from the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the throne and its celebration in the Mass is through St. Peter, his Apostles, and his consecrated disciples.

“There’s a lot of things Christ said and did that you won’r find in Scripture. A fact which is lost on the obtuse.
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” John 21:25”

Your argument appears to be that we can make up anything and pretend Christ said it...

Your argument appears to be that we can make up anything and pretend Christ said it...

Your argument appears to want to completely dismiss oral tradition. We can never know all the teachings Jesus presented to the Apostles (or to others for that matter) just from scripture alone. Oral tradition is not a pretense for Church doctrine. This is very clear when one reads the many of writings of early Church Fathers, some of whom were taught directly by the Apostles. Some were presbyters and bishops appointed by the Apostles or were their successors.

Matt 23:2 When Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses

The Chair is, in its essence, a metaphor/symbol of authority and each Catholic Bishop has his Cathedral with its chair (cathedra) of authority as does the Pope whose Chair/Throne of Peter is in Saint Peter's.

16
posted on 04/06/2013 2:04:39 PM PDT
by Vermont Crank
(Invisible yet are signs of the force of Tradition that'll act upon our inertia into Indifferentism)

“Oral tradition is not a pretense for Church doctrine. This is very clear when one reads the many of writings of early Church Fathers...”

I can agree that there is value in tradition that occurred up until about 100ad. If it wasn’t practiced by then, written about by then, etc., the it is suspect. In any case it isn’t inspired and authoritative. If it appeared hundreds of years later, it is bogus.

I can agree that there is value in tradition that occurred up until about 100ad. If it wasnt practiced by then, written about by then, etc., the it is suspect. In any case it isnt inspired and authoritative.

So you're saying that anything anybody did or said after 100 AD is not, in any way, inspired or authoritative. I will have to disagree completely with you on that. I'm sure you are making the same old argument that - if it's not in the Bible, then it's not true or valid.

My argument is simple - if something cannot be demonstrated to be a legitimate Christian belief during the first 100 years of the church, it didn’t originate from the Apostles or the Scriptures. It is an accretion of history and probably pagan in origin. As such, it is a false belief and not Christian.

I’m fine with disagreement... I’m just pointing out that beliefs as discussed on this thread, do not find their origin in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in Sccripture, nor any identified Apostolic Tradion in the original Church.

For most of these pagan customs, you must go out hundreds of years before they find entry into the church.

I get so weary of these “Pope this and Pope that” threads, accompanied by all this Protestant bashing. One would almost think FR is a RC site or something. Surely not.

What makes this Pope exalting audacity so unique is it is done on a American conservative site like FR. This is the only conservative site I know of that pushes this. European Kings, emperors, popes on their thrones (the throne of Peter), absolutely foreign to what this country was founded. Roman Catholic Machiavelli-like oppression is what the Pilgrims, etc., came here to escape from, for heaven’s sake. America is the very antithesis of all that.

Yet here we have “the throne of Peter,” “Protestant heretics,” pushed here with reckless abandon. On an American conservative site, no less. Go figure.

Dear sasportas. Those who successfully seceded from the Protestant English Crown were , largely, Calvinists who had fled England first for the low countries before shipping-off-to Boston; they were not fleeing Catholicism.

And as for KIngs, the Calvinists were heretics for not recognising the Jesus is King of all and those of us now alive are living witnesses to the ineluctable destruction that followed the creation of a nation that refused to acknowledge and worship Jesus as King of Kings.

That action called down a curse on this country.

23
posted on 04/08/2013 9:46:04 AM PDT
by Vermont Crank
(Invisible yet are signs of the force of Tradition that'll act upon our inertia into Indifferentism)

Yes, I am aware of the facts you state, however, to suggest that the Pilgrims and Puritans were pro-Papacy in any way shape or form, is ludicrous. Early America wanted freedom from the religious oppression of Europe’s kings and Popes. Whether the oppression was RC or Church of England.

Except for Maryland, the one Catholic redoubt, early America was anti-RC. What you guys stand for is the antithesis of what this country is all about.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.